With all the ballyhoo over Lake Balaton I've been reminded of this video: in it a guy shows a railing right down to the water from 5.33 miles away which 'should' have about 8 feet hidden by the earth's curve.

Now, as far as taking the photos goes, the methodology is good, the image is clear enough, and there aren't any issues with lasers or inaccurate measurements.

I mean, not that I think this is proof of anything - but in comparison to the Lake Balaton experiment, for those who want proof, this one seems much better to me.

And the real issue, of course, is that it's just one test, one little dabble, and shouldn't be used to reach a conclusion about anything. Real science, if it thought it could show something, would do this over and over again. Real science wouldn't leap to a conclusion. Real science would wonder if something else was afoot.

For us, we assume some sort of refraction, and aren't threatened by videos such as this, but are interested by what's going on.

In this case, as Mick shows below, it is indeed an effect of atmospheric refraction.

Am I reading this correctly? Are people asking if variances in geoid height might be a factor in local earth curvature experiments?

Well gosh darn if I haven't been saying this for months.

Also, are we still debating the "direct hit into the camera"? Perhaps we could focus on that and get some agreement.

As far as I can see, the fact that the camera can see the laser tells us nothing about the height of the beam at the point of the camera.

Sandor, do you agree?

Finally, I've been meaning to post this here for a while, and maybe should have done so by now. I believe it's relevant. It's a video attempting to show whether there's curvature across 5.33 miles of a lake in upstate New York.

The methodology is good. The outcome is apparently much more clear than the Lake Balaton experiment. And the conclusion is that the video maker was unable to find any evidence of curvature, which includes absolutely nothing in the way of "obscured amount".

I've been through it and it all looks good to me.

Does this lack of curvature across a lake mean that the earth is flat? No, of course not. It would be premature to come to that conclusion. Many more tests would need to be done, including at the same lake on many different days.

To even begin to call it 'science' I imagine one would probably want to spend at least a month repeating the experiment over and over.

Did you know that sometimes a huge amount of Corsica can be seen from Genoa, over 95 miles away, when - to borrow the phrase - "it should be hidden behind thousands of feet of curvature"?

Again, does this prove that the earth is flat? Or does it perhaps suggest that further analysis needs to be done?

I believe there's something quite pertinent to learn from these two genuine - and accepted - examples of apparent lack of curvature with regard to all this.

Click to expand...

Looks good!
Pehaps these measurements are best done in a howling gale.

Notice that below the roofline everything is oddly compressed. This would indicate localized refraction greatly more than standard atmposheric. Cooler water, warmer air, bends the light down and around the curvature of the lake surface - but most significantly for the lower portions.

Notice that below the roofline everything is oddly compressed. This would indicate localized refraction greatly more than standard atmposheric. Cooler water, warmer air, bends the light down and around the curvature of the lake surface - but most significantly for the lower portions.

And there's about ten feet of beach there from the waterline:

Click to expand...

Ah but.. Your photo was taken from a higher point, so it would show more beach.

I'm not sure I would say the picture of the beach building is clear enough to deduce anything from. What I was more interested in was the railing. His picture from distance does appear to show the full railing, and some rocks beneath, so is basically right down to the water:

Naturally we know we shouldn't see this much, but we do. Refraction must play a role.

I think the point is, sometimes photos across lakes show results that match flat earth theory, and I'm okay with that. But we shouldn't draw conclusions from just one or two 'experiments'.

Repetition. Considering other factors. Fine-tuning.

But, of course, all that's for those who think Balaton has 'proved' something (when, in actual fact, I think the video above is a better demonstration of "an apparent lack of curve").

I'm not sure I would say the picture of the beach building is clear enough to deduce anything from. What I was more interested in was the railing. His picture from distance does appear to show the full railing, and some rocks beneath, so is basically right down to the water:

Click to expand...

Well I would not say that photo is any clearer. It's the same kind of thing, huge compression of bottom of image indicating refraction around the curve of the lake.

I think the refraction we are seeing here is localized looming. In the standard atmosphere, all distant images are looming, as the light bends towards the more dense air that's lower down.

The lake is colder than the air, and it cools the air directly above it. So there's a small temperature inversion. The colder air near the lake surface is denser, so bends the light around the curve even more than normal atmospheric refraction would. This accounts for the relatively narrow band of refraction close to the surface of the lake.

Refraction of light can produce the results noted by Rowbotham and Blount. Because the density of air in the Earth's atmosphere decreases with height above the Earth's surface, all light rays travelling nearly horizontally bend downward (assuming a curve or change in air temperature along the line of sight). This phenomenon is routinely allowed for in levelling and celestial navigation.[17]

If the measurement is close enough to the surface, light rays can curve downward at a rate equal to the mean curvature of the Earth's surface. In this case, the two effects of assumed curvature and refraction could cancel each other out and the Earth will appear flat in optical experiments.[18]

This would have been aided, on each occasion, by a temperature inversion in the atmosphere with temperature increasing with altitude above the canal, similar to the phenomenon of the superior image mirage. Temperature inversions like this are common. An increase in air temperature or lapse rate of 0.11 degrees Celsius per metre of altitude would create an illusion of a flat canal, and all optical measurements made near ground level would be consistent with a completely flat surface. If the lapse rate were higher than this (temperature increasing with height at a greater rate), all optical observations would be consistent with a concave surface, a "bowl-shaped earth". Under average conditions, optical measurements are consistent with a spherical Earth approximately 15% less curved than its true diameter.[19] Repetition of the atmospheric conditions required for each of the many observations is not unlikely, and warm days over still water can produce favourable conditions.[20]

Content from external source

And more specifically the experiment here is nearly a mirror of one performed over 100 years ago:

The planists, however, were not yet defeated: On 11 May 1904 Lady Elizabeth Anne Blount, who would go on to be influential in the formation of the Flat Earth Society, hired a commercial photographer to use a telephoto lens camera to take a picture from Welney of a large white sheet she had placed, touching the surface of the river, at Rowbotham's original position six miles (9.7 km) away. The photographer, Edgar Clifton from Dallmeyer's studio, mounted his camera two feet above the water at Welney and was surprised to be able to obtain a picture of the target, which should have been invisible to him given the low mounting point of the camera. Lady Blount published the pictures far and wide.[15]

Content from external source

Telephoto camera, six miles, two feet, low level thing visible.

A big advantage of out current situation is that the much higher quality of cameras available allow us to detect and identify the refraction zone.

Can anything be concluded from this experiment?
No. Many further tests required.

Click to expand...

This might be true if you subscribe to the scientific solipsism of the flat earthers (where all of science has to be personally verified by subjective experiences). But I would take the experiment as another confirmation of decades of similar experiments which have consistently shown this effect.

Regardless though, repeating this particular test is not needed unless we are studying refraction. The real thing that is required is to repeat Wallace's version of the experiment, which is carried out sufficiently high above the waterline to avoid the problem of refraction almost entirely.

Hey guys does everyone understand this guy Mick is saying it's compression when really it just seems like HIS photo isn't even 5.33 miles aware and definitely wasn't captured via a FLIP PHONE extended to the lens of a telescope. Also his pics are at different angles. I am sorry for blasting this out ASAP but I am an objective truther and FLAT EARTH is something I've put nearly 1000 hours into I don't appreciate for everyone falling for this guy duping them maybe it's already been cleared up or maybe I'm wrong but this guy Mick is using these photos as proof when his initial disclaimer of the photo said "a distance" not "at that distance" or "5.33 miles". Please repond lol

Are there any photos of statues of people or animals? It'll probably get the point of refraction over easier when a person is distorted into having tiny legs.

To me the buildings being compressed get the point across, but others will just claim your photos are at an angle or not aligned (as we saw earlier).

Click to expand...

It's tricky to use smaller objects, as they can be hard to see clearly at 5 miles. There are probably people in the OP image.

A building should be good, as it compresses irregularly in one direction. Mountains can also work. The Space Needle compression is pretty obvious. But I understand some people have a hard time understanding perspective, etc.